Police shooting people

danger mouse · 25-03-2008 11:56PM #1

OK I'm just back from the USA. this has been bugging me abit. OK was watching the news. They where reporting about this young lad that got shot by the cops during the week. now i cant see what the problem with this was. the little f**ker had a gun pointed at the cops and got blown away (fair enough i say) but the result of this was the three cops got taken off the job and there is a huge out cry about this.. IMO he got what he deserved and this kind of no nonsense approach should be brought in over here as far as I'm concerned. it reminded me of the two toe rags that where trying to rob that post office in lusk and got put down by the cops for their troubles. what do people think? should we be more on the ball and have more cases where these little knackers get the bullet first ask questions later. better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 as a resent movie put it so well.

MrJoeSoap · 25-03-2008 11:58PM

I wish the Garda shotted more people tbh.

stepbar · 26-03-2008 12:01AM

Why do they have to "blow them away"? Can't they just not shoot to maim?

passive · 26-03-2008 12:02AM

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

I wish the Garda shotted more people tbh.

I wish the grammar sheriff were around...

lynnlegend · 26-03-2008 12:02AM

if he has a white track suit tucked into his socks dont ask any question

MrJoeSoap · 26-03-2008 12:04AM

passive wrote: »

I wish the grammar sheriff were around...

The thread title has been edited so my post probably makes little sense now!

sebastianlieken · 26-03-2008 12:06AM

good for them! rightfully so, police did what id have done....lil ****er points a gun at me if i were in uniform, id "blow him away"

Overheal · 26-03-2008 12:08AM

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.

The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

Captain Chaos · 26-03-2008 12:08AM

stepbar wrote: »

Why do they have to "blow them away"? Can't they just not shoot to maim?

Becasue the the police force of any country are not tought to shoot to maim or wound. Its a shoot to kill or defend policy. If you want to main or knock people down, thats what less than lethal weapons are for.

This is the real world after all not Hollywood. The police and army do not practice drawing smiley faces with bullets on walls all day.

thelordofcheese · 26-03-2008 12:09AM

danger mouse wrote: »

OK I'm just back from the USA. this has been bugging me abit. OK was watching the news. They where reporting about this young lad that got shot by the cops during the week. now i cant see what the problem with this was. the little f**ker had a gun pointed at the cops and got blown away (fair enough i say) but the result of this was the three cops got taken off the job and there is a huge out cry about this.. IMO he got what he deserved and this kind of no nonsense approach should be brought in over here as far as I'm concerned. it reminded me of the two toe rags that where trying to rob that post office in lusk and got put down by the cops for their troubles. what do people think? should we be more on the ball and have more cases where these little knackers get the bullet first ask questions later. better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 as a resent movie put it so well

So, if i get your long, rambling post correctly, he was outnumbered three to one (all armed) and they still felt the need to blow him away?
Yeah, i can see why people might be a bit upset, ohh it's all so crazy, ain't it.

Riddle101 · 26-03-2008 12:10AM

Yes it's time to put fear back into the criminals. I worry about the cops walking around the street with no weapons, yet these gangs are carrying AK47's around and can do serious damage to people

galwayrush · 26-03-2008 12:11AM

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

I wish the Garda shotted more people tbh.

+1
The garda should be able to shoot scum all year round, and i'd like an open season where we all could have a go.:cool:

Virgil° · 26-03-2008 12:13AM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

So, if i get your long, rambling post correctly, he was outnumbered three to one (all armed) and they still felt the need to blow him away?
Yeah, i can see why people might be a bit upset, ohh it's all so crazy, ain't it.

And if said guy had shot one of them?

Schism · 26-03-2008 12:14AM

lynnlegend wrote: »

if he has a white track suit tucked into his socks dont ask any question

QFT :pac:

Seriously it'll never come to the point where the policy is to shoot first and ask questions later.

danger mouse · 26-03-2008 12:14AM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

So, if i get your long, rambling post correctly, he was outnumbered three to one (all armed) and they still felt the need to blow him away?
Yeah, i can see why people might be a bit upset, ohh it's all so crazy, ain't it.

stupid post /\/\

johnnyskeleton · 26-03-2008 12:15AM

From the wire.

So trusting in the police you are.

Don't doubt that the Gardai would make up something about a gun being pointed at them if needs be.

Overheal · 26-03-2008 12:16AM

use

lynnlegend · 26-03-2008 12:18AM

Overheal wrote: »

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill.

The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

thats a fair point but would you if were the cop and its a split second desion and you get to go home safe and sound when the other option is to give them a chance to get a shot off at you or your friends

johnnyskeleton · 26-03-2008 12:18AM

Overheal wrote: »

use

Much obliged

MizzLolly · 26-03-2008 12:21AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Much obliged

You aren't 20ish with brown hair and a Louth accent are ya?

johnnyskeleton · 26-03-2008 12:24AM

MizzLolly wrote: »

You aren't 20ish with brown hair and a Louth accent are ya?

You can tell all of that by my inability to post a youtube video?

Rb · 26-03-2008 12:25AM

If he pointed a gun at them, then fair enough, shoot him dead. Shooting him in the legs may bring him down, but he could well take a quick shot at you that could end up killing you.

Same goes for police or weapon holders, if someone points a gun at you, kill them.

danger mouse · 26-03-2008 12:27AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

From the wire.

So trusting in the police you are.

Don't doubt that the Gardai would make up something about a gun being pointed at them if needs be.

ehhh Hollywood TV= not real life!!!1

johnnyskeleton · 26-03-2008 12:30AM

danger mouse wrote: »

ehhh Hollywood TV= not real life!!!1

American Media= not real life either.

I guess you have to pick the lies that closest resemble the truth.

lynnlegend · 26-03-2008 12:30AM

rb_ie wrote: »

If he pointed a gun at them, then fair enough, shoot him dead. Shooting him in the legs may bring him down, but he could well take a quick shot at you that could end up killing you.

Same goes for police or weapon holders, if someone points a gun at you, kill them.

dead right is this country ever going to stop mothering people that break the law

Dyr · 26-03-2008 12:33AM

Overheal wrote: »

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.

What comic did ye read that in then?

Lemming · 26-03-2008 12:34AM

Overheal wrote: »

The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

I think I saw the footage of that. Guy was waving the gun around whilst standing at a first floor window?

But that said and done, how many police officers have military training and are expert marksmen. Granted, you'd like to think they're all expert marskmen/women given they're carrying firearms but most aren't. So the chances of missing a small target and hitting something else are very high.

Even look at the Abbeylara siege. McCarthy was "dead" when he left his front doorstep with that shotgun. The ERU had no option but to shoot to kill in case he discharged the shotgun at someone, even accidentally.

Whilst it can be said three officers against the kid looks a bit iffy, we've no idea of the circumstances. Was it in the middle of a busy street? Near people's homes, etc.?

Captain Chaos · 26-03-2008 12:39AM

Lemming wrote: »

I think I saw the footage of that. Guy was waving the gun around whilst standing at a first floor window?

But that said and done, how many police officers have military training and are expert marksmen. Granted, you'd like to think they're all expert marskmen/women given they're carrying firearms but most aren't. So the chances of missing a small target and hitting something else are very high.

Even look at the Abbeylara siege. McCarthy was "dead" when he left his front doorstep with that shotgun. The ERU had no option but to shoot to kill in case he discharged the shotgun at someone, even accidentally.

Whilst it can be said three officers against the kid looks a bit iffy, we've no idea of the circumstances. Was it in the middle of a busy street? Near people's homes, etc.?

In the McCarthy case, I believe he was hit once, failed to stop, hit again, he kept moving and then two shots fired in quick succession stopped him.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Spitfire666 · 26-03-2008 12:39AM

there is no such thinng as shoot to maim or wound or incepacitate or whatever else you want to say. if you need to shoot it is because the situation required it. so you shoot to kill. thats it.
its also cheaper to pay out if you shoot to kill rather then shoot to maim and the guy becomes paraplegic or whatever and the state have to pay for him for the rest of his life but then thats the sceptic's take on it.

Also, what does it matter how many people it is against 1 guy. if he has a gun and aims at one of any number of people, then he should be shot. just because it was 3 on 1 doesnt mean the danger of getting shot wasnt there.

Overheal · 26-03-2008 12:42AM

Bambi wrote: »

What comic did ye read that in then?

Police Academy. I think.

Theres been many a crook freed because the police used 'excessive force' - ie. trying to disable the man rather than kill him, a police officer shot a man in the knee-cap and the suspect got to walk free. I could be years pulling up the case report sadly. I cant remember how many years ago it was or even what state the incident took place in.

Lemming wrote:

I think I saw the footage of that. Guy was waving the gun around whilst standing at a first floor window?

But that said and done, how many police officers have military training and are expert marksmen. Granted, you'd like to think they're all expert marskmen/women given they're carrying firearms but most aren't. So the chances of missing a small target and hitting something else are very high.

This happened at street level and the ranger had time to set up his rifle tripod and everything. Still, an amazingly well placed shot. He wasn't part of the police force so you're right there.

Even with practice too, you're right in saying its very difficult to place your shots. The beretta/glocks that most police forces are armed with, I have shot on the range - and especially the beretta - have a mean kick to them. So in a real world scenario I can only imagine how hard it would be to place a shot.

Still I'd love to hear more about this particular incident.

MissLolly wrote:

You aren't 20ish with brown hair and a Louth accent are ya?

I'm 20 an I can post a video

rb_ie wrote:

If he pointed a gun at them, then fair enough, shoot him dead. Shooting him in the legs may bring him down, but he could well take a quick shot at you that could end up killing you.

Same goes for police or weapon holders, if someone points a gun at you, kill them.

If only t'were so simple. It starts with The Right to Bear Arms, carries on to vigilantism, and then you have to see everything on a case-by-case after so long.

But first and foremost not everyone holding a gun (in fact very few) will actually have the conviction to pull the trigger. And that includes Officers. Hesitation is human.

coyote6 · 26-03-2008 12:43AM

Overheal wrote: »

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.

The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

I've been a law enforcement firearms instructor for over 10 years in the states. We are not trained to aim for the legs. We train to aim for center mass. Research a bit about combat stress (i.e. what happens when you are in life or death encounter) and you'll discover that one most often loses fine motor skills. Therefore you usually don't even use sights at close range or at best for highly trained operators the front sight. The quoted piece above is nonsense.

I also train police snipers and have been one myself for 6 years. That shot was very much not the norm. Snipers don't typically shoot guns out of hands. Quite frankly snipers are most often OBSERVER/snipers with the heavy emphasis on OBSERVER i.e. intel, overwatch etc.

The greatest shots ever taken are yet to be reported officially. But if you're interested look up USMC Gunnery sgt. Carlos Hathcock. Then you'll see what a sniper is. Enough history has past that his story is the one that wrote the book on snipercraft.

The quoted piece is a result of too much belief in hollywood and you tube I'm afraid.

Police shooting people

Comments